Richard Dawkins on Jesus Dying for Sins

[pearl]

The moral influence theory is described here: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia . There are four or five theories of atonement in Christianity. Dawkins is representing things as if there were only one: the one it is easiest to object to, of course.

There is a theory promoted by the Franciscans that Jesus was not an afterthought or a 'scapegoat' but first thought, God in solidarity with his creation, and Jesus being the reason for creation.
From this perspective, God is appreciated with a different emphasis. God is not an angry or vindictive God, demanding the suffering and death of Jesus as a payment for past sin. God is, instead, a gracious God, sharing divine life and love in creation.
Another great philosopher and theologian, Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), proclaimed and defended the primacy of the Incarnation. He based his view on the Scriptures and early theologians and on logic. He argued, for example, that God's supreme work, the Incarnation, had to be first and foremost in God's mind. It could not be dependent on or occasioned by any action of humans, especially sin.
As for Dawkins all too many people who claim a high level of knowledge in the field of science have little knowledge in Biblical faith beyond that of a child which explains why Dawkins knows he is out of his league when it comes to the science of philosophy or theology beyond fundamentalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reading the replies here is interesting to say the least.....

What Richard Dawkins knows about God, his purpose and the Bible would fit on the head of a pin.

He knows nothing about atonement....he knows nothing about redemption....and he knows nothing about God's laws or how his purpose is being played out exactly as he said it would in our time. (2 Peter 3:3-4)

Dawkins has an ego the size of a house and it will prove true that the bigger they are (or imagine themselves to be) the harder they will fall.

Be patient Mr Dawkins......and you will see that what God foretells, will come to pass without your vast scientific knowledge or experience accounting for any part of it. Knowing about religions doesn't mean you know anything about God.

Haaa... the good ol' baseless ad hominim followed by threats of imaginary suffering after death.

Classic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not a dude...dude. And please don't mistake confidence for arrogance.

Sorry but when your "confidence" comes out in misplaced ad hominims followed by religious threats of suffering after death.... then it's kind of hard to see it as anything other then (misplaced) arrogance.

Dawkins struts around a stage like he is science's version of Jesus Christ...

Well, he sure is an extremely accomplished scientist....
People like you likely only know him from his post-science carreer in documantary making and authoring popular books and rants on religion though.

Before that, he was a very accomplished evolutionary biologist and oxford professor.

.but he is saving no one from anything.

He's not out to "save" anybody. And certainly not from imaginary threats.
Sounds like you are projecting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which areas would that be? I don't know too many areas 'dominated by believers' in this world...

Ever heared of "the bible belt"?

I cannot for the life of me think what 'critical thinking and basic science education' could possibly contribute to my 'daily life' more than the Bible already provides

An actual understanding of reality.

I have no unanswered questions, and I don't have to invent baseless theories to fill the gaps in my actual knowledge.

Likely because your income doesn't depend on such knowledge.

For example, suppose your job is to tell oil companies where they need to go drill for oil.
If your knowledge of geology, physics, etc is framed within a YEC model of the world, then I can guarantee that you won't be succesfull.

In order to find out where oil can be found, you're going to have to have a pretty good understanding of what oil is, how it forms, how the geological column works, how a geological map must be read, etc....
Without that information, you won't know where to go look for oil.

Off course if your job is being a personal health coach, a waiter, a store clerk, an accountant,... then you won't have any problems drowning in YEC propaganda and you wouldn't feel like you have "unanswered questions" or that there are knowledge gaps that need filling.

Of course I can claim it....just as much as science claims that evolution ever took place on the scale that they imagine it must have to answer those questions for which they have no real concrete evidence.

Let's not pretend as if the scientific unified field theory of biology is on the same footing as religious dogma when it comes to supporting evidence.

Since you also said "he" I'm assuming that you thought I was male for some reason....its not the first time.
A quick search will usually reveal a person's gender....not that it matters, but I do think it does make a difference in how males correspond with other males. When they find that I am female, they usually take me less seriously.....can't have a peeing competition with a girl I suppose.

For the record: it doesn't matter to me at all if you are male or female as it changes nothing concerning the points under discussion.

Now if the topic was the physical sensation of giving birth, then it would matter.
When it comes to the core tenents of a religion - not really.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good points! I quite agree with you. I think too that there are huge numbers of religious people worldwide who are no more nuanced nor sophisticated about their religions than is Dawkins.

Time and again, I hear folks complain that he lacks nuance, lacks understanding, lacks sophistication, etc. etc. etc. I totally agree with them.

But what is often not mentioned is that so do the vast majority of adherents in every religion on earth. That's not so much a criticism of those people as it is a recognition that most of us humans are 'average people'. You simply cannot expect most of us humans to be scholars and experts about something so vast and complex as a major religion. We have enough trouble most days just juggling the workload at our day jobs.

It's quite alright to point out that Dawkins is no scholar of Christianity or any other religion. Just don't do it in a way that implies he knows significantly less about Christianity than, say, the average Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, or Jehovah's Witness.

I have been on this Forum 16 years. I have seen tons of people come and go, but I have not even once seen the majority of the most active threads rise in sophistication and nuance above the level of a high school bull session about god, horniness, and pizza. How are you going to change that without either turning the Forum in an 'Experts Only' club, or changing human nature?

Think about that.

I'ld add to that that it seems to me that Dawkins is also addressing those "less sophisticated" theists. Creationists in particular actually.

He primarily addresses fundamentalists. Not so much the "moderate" that doesn't invoke gods to explain or claim anything special.

 

[exchemist]

Why wouldn't he go after creationism? Creationism is a widespread religious belief that he seems especially suited to engage with.

40% of Americans Believe in Creationism


Polling creationism and evolution around the world | National Center for Science Education

Dawkins ridicules creationism and thereby claims to ridicule the whole of Christianity.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not a dude...dude. And please don't mistake confidence for arrogance.
Dawkins struts around a stage like he is science's version of Jesus Christ....but he is saving no one from anything.

On several occasions I've heard Dawkins promote teaching comparative religion in our schools. How do you feel about that?

 

[exchemist]

I think that, in general, Dawkins's criticisms are aimed at typical mainstream beliefs of the Christian laity in the pews.

He gets labelled as "not deeply informed," but this is because he's responding to positions that aren't deeply informed, generally.

If you ask the average Christian why they're a Christian, odds are that they won't respond with the modal ontological argument. They'll probably respond with something very like the position that Dawkins was speaking to in the OP.

Dawkins's criticisms of Christianity are generally fair. It's just that Christianity, by and large, is much less sophisticated than the theologians and apologists wish it was. That's what creates the disconnect.

Yes, I've seen this style of argument before. However we don't criticise the ideas of science based on what the man on the Clapham omnibus believes. We know that the average person has only a fairly hazy understanding of it. He just knows enough to get him through his day. The same goes for religion. Why, then, should we judge the ideas of religion by what the average person believes, rather than by what the scholars of it say?

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, I've seen this style of argument before. However we don't criticise the ideas of science based on what the man on the Clapham omnibus believes. We know that the average person has only a fairly hazy understanding of it. He just knows enough to get him through his day. The same goes for religion. Why, then, should we judge the ideas of religion by what the average person believes, rather than by what the scholars of it say?

That's an excellent point. I think it's unassailable when precisely understood (which, however, will never happen on RF )

The only grounds I can think of offhand for criticizing a religion on the basis of what the average person believes would be if one were to argue that what the average person believes is inimical to the well-being of others. e.g. the average person believes burning witches is acceptable sport due to their religion.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The moral influence theory is described here: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia . There are four or five theories of atonement in Christianity. Dawkins is representing things as if there were only one: the one it is easiest to object to, of course.

So the moral influence theory seems to be about Jesus dying as a demonstration of God's love, and God changing humanity's perception of him as "not offended, harsh, and judgmental, but as loving." As far as I can tell, Dawkins' point still stands 100% against this theory, because God could demonstrate his love better by just forgiving sins rather than torturing and killing his own son/himself. And if the forgiveness of sins has nothing to do with it, how the hell does Jesus dying from a brutal execution demonstrate "love?"

Dawkins annoys me because he seems either to know little about what he attacks, or, worse, knows more than he lets on but nevertheless takes refuge in facile caricatures for rhetorical purposes - which would be dishonest of him. I admit I don't know which it is, but I think it must be one or the other. He's made a deserved reputation as a biologist but seems to suffer from what is sometimes called "Nobel disease": the Nobel disease - The Skeptic's Dictionary (the term extends beyond actual prize winners.)

I would have to disagree. He has debated both evangelicals and more liberal Christians, and he has won every debate. He even got a priest to admit that if he were born in Afghanistan, he'd be a Muslim, and the only reason he was a Catholic was an accident of geography. When Dawkins asked him why he was a Catholic, he couldn't answer.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Dawkins ridicules creationism and thereby claims to ridicule the whole of Christianity.

Wrong again. Dawkins is well aware that most Christians aren't creationists and has stated this many times. He has never claimed that refuting creationism refutes Christianity. What he has stated is that adding a god to the already explanatory process of natural selection just clutters up and destroys the elegance of the theory of evolution.

 

[Muffled]

I came across this quote by Richard Dawkins today, and it is one of the most brilliant and concise illustrations of the absurdity of Christianity that I've seen. Christians, how would you respond to this?

If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who's God trying to impress? Presumably himself, since he is judge and jury, as well as execution victim.

-Richard Dawkins

I believe what is absurd to the slow of wit is quite logical to those who have understanding.

I believe you will find the OT reporting that He does.

I believe God is trying to impress those who are cynical and have a hard time believing that God will do what He says.

I believe there is a phrase for those who assume things.

 

[Muffled]

God needed a way to start over and Jesus was his way

I believe that is false. There is no indication that God wishes to start over.

 

[Muffled]

Despite what I said above, blood guilt was a big thing in the ANE and could obly be atoned with blood, but to equate the sin of each and every individual with blood guilt seems a stretch.

I don't believe it has anything to do with blood guilt. I believe this is what Jesus says about it: John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't believe it has anything to do with blood guilt. I believe this is what Jesus says about it: John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life

Dang! I forgot all about John 3:14.

 

[exchemist]

Wrong again. Dawkins is well aware that most Christians aren't creationists and has stated this many times. He has never claimed that refuting creationism refutes Christianity. What he has stated is that adding a god to the already explanatory process of natural selection just clutters up and destroys the elegance of the theory of evolution.

Dawkins has claimed, or implied, many things at many times over the 20 odd years he's been banging this drum of his.

But it is true that latterly he seems to be calming down a bit. I understand he even grudgingly conceded, in his debate at the Sheldonian with Rowan Williams, that he is strictly speaking an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Even in that debate however, he wasted his time invoking Darwin, as if Darwin's ideas have anything to say about the existence of God or the value of religion: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/23/richard-dawkins-rowan-williams-bout. Invoking Darwin is a good way to attack creationism of course, but since mainstream Christianity has no quarrel with science, it's daft to bring forward Darwin as an argument in front of the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury.

He did a re-run at the Cambridge Union, in which he lost the debate heavily, but did manage a good penis joke for the students: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/01/richard-dawkins-rowan-williams-debate

 

[syo]

I came across this quote by Richard Dawkins today, and it is one of the most brilliant and concise illustrations of the absurdity of Christianity that I've seen. Christians, how would you respond to this?

If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who's God trying to impress? Presumably himself, since he is judge and jury, as well as execution victim.

-Richard Dawkins

The Christian God sent Jesus because he wanted interaction with humans.

 

[exchemist]

I would agree with you there. Dawkins seems at times quite willing to take cheap shots such as by creating false antitheses, etc.

It appalls me that such a man -- who is fully capable of explaining the ins and outs of evolutionary theory to a popular audience without losing much in the way of nuance or accuracy, should suddenly lower himself to the level of a right-wing talk show host when it comes to trying to cheat and manipulate people into believing what he wants them to believe through the use of false antitheses, mischaracterizations, one-sided pleading, and so forth.

I could excuse that as 'innocent mistakes' were it done by a village idiot such as myself, but Dawkins? It's not like his books on biology fail to provide sufficient evidence that he thinks way better than he pretends to think when writing about Christianity for a popular audience. I just hope I'm wrong about him. I hate it when good men pander.

And I say all that despite that, as a biologist, I respect and love him.

By the way, I love Sam Harris. I do not always agree with him, but he has never (unlike Dawkins) given me reason to doubt his intellectual integrity. His conclusions, (sometimes) yes -- but never his integrity.

I don't know Sam Harris, I'm afraid.

 

[Jimmy]

I believe that is false. There is no indication that God wishes to start over.

That's cool

 

[ratiocinator]

The Christian God sent Jesus because he wanted interaction with humans.

This god couldn't think off a better way to interact with us?